Barack Obama. Criticism Continues and Keeps Coming
© copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert
Please dive in, be a voyeur, and venture into the world of battering Barack. Tucker Carlson on Obama's church: "It's hard to call that. YouTube.
When you are a threat, even if a peaceful one, criticism follows you. Barack Obama is receiving a barrage of barbs. The Junior Senator from Illinois is too inexperienced, too fat, too thin, too handsome, too elite, and not eloquent enough. He is "clean," not as clean as he could be, and too conservative. Barack is not Black enough. Mister Obama declares that, for now, his race is perchance a novelty. However, he surmises, the uniqueness of his tone will wear off.
A New York Times reporter did respond to the charge of his color.
The arguments being raised about Mr. Obama’s blackness — or his lack of blackness — seem positively antique at a time when Americans are moving away from the view of ancestry as a central demographic fact and toward a view that dispenses with those traditional boundaries. Even so, the complaints about Mr. Obama provide an interesting opportunity to examine the passing of the old and the rise of the new.While the discussion of Obama's race may wane, adversaries can always turn to his philosophical positions. His middle name, 'Hussein' was ruled a reason for concern. Throughout cyberspace and the mainstream media, talk of the terrorist, Obama, loomed large.The claim that the candidate isn’t really black because his mother is white carries little weight under either system. It makes no sense at all to the young Americans who checked more than one box when identifying themselves by race in the last census. They subscribe to a fluid notion of race and seem perfectly willing to let people describe themselves racially any way they choose.
Nor does the charge make sense in the black community itself. That community has historically and eagerly embraced as black anyone and everyone with any African ancestry to speak of. That embrace often included interracial families, who lived in black communities long before they were accepted elsewhere. It included even blue-eyed, sandy-haired people like the civil rights leader Walter White, whose black ancestry was imperceptible to the naked eye.
Senator Barack Hussein Obama is or was said to be a Muslim. He studied in a madrasa, a group of buildings used for teaching Islamic theology and religious law, typically including a mosque. Perhaps, no, probably this American man is actually an insurgent. Those on the right recounted tales declaring that obviously, Obama was trained to hate the United States and all white people. The Senator responded.
“If your name is Barack Hussein Obama, you can expect it, some of that. I think the majority of voters know that I'm a member of the United Church of Christ, and that I take my faith seriously,” Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press.The critics looked at the religious practices of this Illinois Senator once again, this time acknowledging his Christian faith. They assessed his spiritual affiliations. Now, they joyously state, Obama's Christian church advocates separatism. Principles such as those read and heard in the United Church of Christ are certainly not Christian according to conservative talk show host, Tucker Carlson. The Journalist joins his broad conservative coalition and fuels an inflammatory flame.“Ultimately what I think voters will be looking for is not so much a litmus test on faith as an assurance that a candidate has a value system and that is appreciative of the role that religious faith can play in helping shape people's lives,” he said.
Tucker Carlson criticized Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), a presumptive candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, for being a member of a church that Carlson claimed "sounds separatist to me" and "contradicts the basic tenets of Christianity," a subject Carlson said he was "actually qualified to discuss." Carlson was referring to the "Black Value System" advocated by the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, of which Obama is a member.The faithful Senator assailed such claims in June 2006. At that time, he was speaking to another conservative pundit, Alan Keyes. The "Black" political opponent, Mister Keyes suggested in an opinionated oration, "Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama." Christ would not vote for Barack Obama because Barack Obama has behaved in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved." Although Senator Obama was encouraged to ignore the taunt, he concluded he could not. I offer a portion of Barack Obama's response to the sinister Alan Keyes.
Mr. Keyes's implicit accusation that I was not a true Christian nagged at me, and I was also aware that my answer did not adequately address the role my faith has in guiding my own values and my own beliefs.Thus, I suspect Presidential candidate Barack Obama will address this recent twist on an old assault. The junior Senator has addressed others.Now, my dilemma was by no means unique. In a way, it reflected the broader debate we've been having in this country for the last thirty years over the role of religion in politics. For some time now, there has been plenty of talk among pundits and pollsters that the political divide in this country has fallen sharply along religious lines. Indeed, the single biggest "gap" in party affiliation among white Americans today is not between men and women, or those who reside in so-called Red States and those who reside in Blue, but between those who attend church regularly and those who don't.
Conservative leaders have been all too happy to exploit this gap, consistently reminding evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their Church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage; school prayer and intelligent design. Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait.
At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that - regardless of our personal beliefs - constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith.
Now, such strategies of avoidance may work for progressives when our opponent is Alan Keyes. But over the long haul, I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in people's lives -- in the lives of the American people -- and I think it's time that we join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.
And if we're going to do that then we first need to understand that Americans are a religious people. 90 percent of us believe in God, 70 percent affiliate themselves with an organized religion, 38 percent call themselves committed Christians, and substantially more people in America believe in angels than they do in evolution.
This religious tendency is not simply the result of successful marketing by skilled preachers or the draw of popular mega-churches. In fact, it speaks to a hunger that's deeper than that - a hunger that goes beyond any particular issue or cause.
Each day, it seems, thousands of Americans are going about their daily rounds - dropping off the kids at school, driving to the office, flying to a business meeting, shopping at the mall, trying to stay on their diets - and they're coming to the realization that something is missing. They are deciding that their work, their possessions, their diversions, their sheer busyness, is not enough.
They want a sense of purpose, a narrative arc to their lives. They're looking to relieve a chronic loneliness, a feeling supported by a recent study that shows Americans have fewer close friends and confidants than ever before. And so they need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them - that they are not just destined to travel down that long highway towards nothingness. And I speak with some experience on this matter. I was not raised in a particularly religious household, as undoubtedly many in the audience were.
My father, who returned to Kenya when I was just two, was born Muslim but as an adult became an atheist.
My mother, whose parents were non-practicing Baptists and Methodists, was probably one of the most spiritual and kindest people I've ever known, but grew up with a healthy skepticism of organized religion herself. As a consequence, so did I. It wasn't until after college, when I went to Chicago to work as a community organizer for a group of Christian churches, that I confronted my own spiritual dilemma.
I was working with churches, and the Christians who I worked with recognized themselves in me.
They saw that I knew their Book and that I shared their values and sang their songs. But they sensed that a part of me that remained removed, detached, that I was an observer in their midst. And in time, I came to realize that something was missing as well -- that without a vessel for my beliefs, without a commitment to a particular community of faith, at some level I would always remain apart, and alone.
And if it weren't for the particular attributes of the historically black church, I may have accepted this fate. But as the months passed in Chicago, I found myself drawn - not just to work with the church, but to be in the church. For one thing, I believed and still believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change, a power made real by some of the leaders here today.
Because of its past, the black church understands in an intimate way the Biblical call to feed the hungry and cloth the naked and challenge powers and principalities. And in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world.
As a source of hope. And perhaps it was out of this intimate knowledge of hardship -- the grounding of faith in struggle -- that the church offered me a second insight, one that I think is important to emphasize today.
Faith doesn't mean that you don't have doubts. You need to come to church in the first place precisely because you are first of this world, not apart from it. You need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash away - because you are human and need an ally in this difficult journey.
It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street in the Southside of Chicago one day and affirm my Christian faith. It came about as a choice, and not an epiphany. I didn't fall out in church. The questions I had didn't magically disappear. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt that I heard God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.
That's a path that has been shared by millions upon millions of Americans - evangelicals, Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims alike; some since birth, others at certain turning points in their lives. It is not something they set apart from the rest of their beliefs and values.
In fact, it is often what drives their beliefs and their values. And that is why that, if we truly hope to speak to people where they're at - to communicate our hopes and values in a way that's relevant to their own - then as progressives, we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse.
Because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations towards one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome - others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends.
When attacks against the man prove to be ineffective. Thus, those intimidated by a Barack Obama Presidency must go further. They have. The Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, a close bud and ally of the not so popular President George W. Bush is lashing out. Howard spoke of the Senator's proposed policies.
In a nationally televised interview on Sunday, Howard said Obama's plan meant that the leaders of Al Qaeda in Iraq should "be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats" in presidential elections due late next year.Prime Minister Howard has aspirations and needs. He too is running for office amidst much criticism. Many Australian citizens do not favor a man closely associated with America, its failed policies, Mister Bush, and the American President's mishandling of Iraq. Aussies too want out of Iraq and wonder whether it was wise to have ever entered into such a war.
In the AP interview, Obama laughed off criticism Saturday from Australian Prime Minister John Howard, who said Obama's plans for Iraq “encourage those who wanted to completely destabilize and destroy Iraq.”Senator Obama stressed that a leader must have forethought and consider what is really being said and done. The validity of Intelligence must be a consideration. For him, in reference to Iraq, it always was.“It's flattering that one of George W. Bush's allies feels obliged to attack me,” Obama said.
Obama said that if Howard did not think enough was being done in Iraq, he should consider sending more Australian troops to the region. Australia has about 1,400 troops in Iraq, mostly in noncombat roles.
“I don't think there is a more significant set of decisions than the decision to go to war,” Obama said. “I think the war was a tragic mistake and it never should have been authorized.”The Prime minister retorts; he has no political agenda. He merely wishes to make his position known. Howard is protecting the interest of his prized people and the allied Australian armed forces stationed in Iraq.Obama told reporters he thinks his early opposition to the war shows “it was possible to make judgments that this would not work out well” and that it speaks “to the kind of judgment that I will be bringing to the office of president.”
The senator has called for capping the number of U.S. troops in Iraq and then beginning to withdraw them on May 1. He wants a complete pullout of combat brigades by March 31, 2008.
Prime Minister John Howard of Australia denied Monday that he had a political motive when he said terrorists in Iraq would be praying for Senator Barack Obama, a Democratic hopeful, to become U.S. president.One must wonder; what will come next. It seems America and even Australia has substituted the well-known Mac Attacks for the barrages against Barack, battering on Obama. Admittedly, Senator Obama may be too much of a conformist for me; however, I am impressed that this man does not let criticism stand. He does not avoid addressing the assertions; nor does he wait for moss to grow beneath his feet.Howard, a steadfast supporter of President George W. Bush in the Iraq war, insisted that his criticism of Obama's plan to withdraw U.S. combat troops in Iraq by March 31 next year was in Australia's national interest because Obama's plan would represent a defeat for Australia's most important military ally.
You go Barack; be real. Call upon your challengers; ask them to substantiate their claims. I am certain criticism will continue to come. Perchance that is good. I might not have considered your positions as thoroughly as I am were you not there, actively speaking to the allegations. I thank you for exemplifying what for me is a "great communicator." Might I say, you are quite "articulate," unlike many that state you are such.
Dear Earl Ofari Hutchinson . . .
I thank you for digging up the real dirt, the treasures that truly threaten the "Right." This information is valuable. Barack Obama's Illinois State Senate record reveals he might be a viable Progressive candidate.
Please review the evidence the Conservatives are sure to use against Barack Obama . . .
The Senator . . .
This record will give Republicans much to criticize. An entrant that votes to raise taxes surely will not be popular. maintaining a healthy infrastructure is not an American priority, or at least it has not been for decades. No one remembers that with sufficient funds, we could perhaps preserve our schools, sustain quality libraries, police, and fire services. This nation has not focused on these fundamentals for quite some time.
Therefore, our fellow citizens might not understand an aspirant suggesting we support our offspring and ourselves by allowing reasonable levies. They may not understand the need to save our communities before they crumble further.
For these stances, Barack Obama will certainly be skewered. A few will say he is a thinking candidate, not a pandering politician. Others might assess these policies and work to protect their personal pocketbooks. Yes, in Barack Obama there is much to condemn, or is there? Stay tuned. This is the Election 08.
Refer to the references for rants and rages against Barack Obama. . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on February 12, 2007 at 11:35 AM in American Dream, Black History, Past/Present, Black Men, Bush 43 Administration, Communities, Communities and Communication , Compassionate Conservatives, Elections, Fear, Iraq War, Manipulated Media, Politics, Presidential Politics, Propaganda and Politics, Religion, Religious Right, Xenophobia | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Procreate or Annul the Marriage. Washington Initiative
© Copyright 2007 Betsy L. Angert
After marrying, my Mom tried diligently for four full years to give birth to a child. She went from specialist to specialist. Batteries of tests were run, and then, re-run. Although she and my father were both fertile and they were a couple that thoroughly enjoyed intercourse, they could not seem to produce a baby. My Mom, a scientist at heart, concluded that perhaps, she was not fecund when most women were. Perchance her cycle was different. Once considering that possibility was enough. From then on, she was able to plan her pregnancies. My Mom gave birth to three children, none born in the first three years.
Apparently, if a Washington State initiative passes, couples such as my parents would be required to have their marriage annulled. "Naturally," gay partnerships, would not, could not be considered. Obviously, such a union would not be classified as marriage material. The Religious Right, may have felt embolden after the state Supreme Court upheld a ban on same-sex marriage, however they did not propose a plan to go further. They did not restrict what constitutes marriage in a manner that might seem feasible to them. Numerous pious persons say the bible deems the purpose of matrimony is procreation. Thus, the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance took action.
This organization, [WDMA] has filed papers stating
marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children in order to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriage would be subject to annulment.Organizer Gregory Gadow proclaimed in a printed statement, “For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation ... The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine. If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage." As absurd as this measure is, it may have purpose. Profundity is always welcome and wise, though the dynamics for introducing such depth could go awry.All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" and people in those marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.
I have other relatives, friends too, that though bountifully able to produce babies struggled to do so. Many discovered they could not produce. For one or both the machinery was not as it was meant to be. Infertilty is common. Some couples, when first married cannot afford to give birth to a newborn. Times are tight. They plan to become parents; however, for now there is a need to wait. Many fathers and mothers want to provide a secure and stable home for their offspring. They are building a nest egg and attempting to establish a foundation. Furthering their family is in the plans; it will be, though in the future. First, they need to find the funds. Down payments on homes are steep.
Some persons purposely choose not to have children. They may marry late. They may fear being the best of parents; theirs were not. There are a myriad of reasons for not bring children into a marriage.
There is much to be considered when preparing for progeny. Customs and conventions do not always equate to wisdom.
That being said, I am baffled. Conservatives claim the Progressives want too much government in their lives. Yet, when it comes to "privacy" issues, it seems the traditionalists want greater restrictions, even, or especially, in the bedroom. They actively wish to stamp out sex, unless the intent is to procreate. The Right seeks to further scrutinize what goes on in the boudoir.
Supporters must gather more than 224,000 valid signatures by July 6 to put the initiative on the November ballot.Perhaps, enthusiast are not working to change the law. Perchance they are only wishing to discuss how ridiculous the people in America are. When, we as a nation, determine the definition for family we forget circumstances within our own. I understand the logic; I fear unexpected results.Opponents say the measure is another attack on traditional marriage, but supporters say the move is needed to have a discussion on the high court ruling.
Please peruse the Initiative . . .
Initiative 957Consider this assessment. Fewer Americans married with children - Census Bureau statistics show that married people with children account for 25% of American households. USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), Then, make your own. What does "marriage" mean to you.
If passed by Washington voters, the Defense of Marriage Initiative would:
add the phrase, “who are capable of having children with one another” to the legal definition of marriage;
require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;
require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as “unrecognized";
establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and
make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.
Contemplate the references . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on February 10, 2007 at 02:14 PM in American Family, Approval or Love, Art of Loving, Have or Be, Civics, Civil Rights, Communities, Compassion, Conflict, Complex, Compassionate Conservatives, Emotional Decisions, Emotional Intelligence, Empathy and Evolution, Ethics, Looking at Life, Looking for Love, Marital Status, Marriage, Quality of Life, Question Everything, Religious Right | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Bush Boasts of Military Service, Gerald R. Ford's ©
This morning I stood in the kitchen and watched the ceremony. Former President Gerald R. Ford was laid to rest. Dignitaries spoke in memorial. Of course, the current President of the United Sates was asked to address a mournful audience. His words surprised me and did not.
Days earlier, at the first official commemoration of President Ford, there were no signs of George W. Bush. Our nation's leader was busy planning his war. Finally, he decided to fix a strategy in stone. Sadly, the plan is surge. This decision flies in the face of a Ford proposal released last week. However, that matters not. George W. Bush trusts that history will receive him well. Bush will be considered steadfast as he "stays the course" regardless of success.
Thus, the junior George could not be bothered with ritual rites of passage when Ford's body first arrived for viewing in the Capital. For George W. Bush the thought of travel to Washington District of Colombia seemed far away. Young Bush always preferred Crawford, Texas. He longs for more time on the ranch. The death of a President is no reason to shorten a "working vacation."
When Bush junior was asked to consider the prospect of returning to the beltway and honoring the former President fully, he likely reflected on the recently reported interviews. For two years prominent journalist, Bob Woodward met with Gerald Ford. They discussed the situation in Iraq, the Bush plan or lack there of, and Ford's own former staff members, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. The elder statesman, now citizen Gerald R. Ford had little good to say. He disagreed with the initial strategy and from his words; we could surmise the now proposed "surge" was not a welcome coming.
It might be assumed; Gerald R. Ford was reprimanding George W. Bush; he disapproved of the attacks on Iraq. Although President Ford insisted the interviews and his opinions not be made public until after his passing, oh, the timing of his departure left much to be desired in the Wonderful World of Bush. Perchance Bush contemplated and concluded, the gall of Jerry Ford. How dare this former statesman ridicule me publicly? How could President Ford question the judgment of a man that followed his lead? George W. chose a Cabinet reminiscent of former President Ford's. For forty-three, that demonstrated the ultimate respect for the man, Ford, and his choices.
Then there was the press, the punitive gesture from the former President.
In the tape-recorded interview, Ford was critical not only of Bush but also of Vice President Cheney -- Ford's White House chief of staff -- and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who served as Ford's chief of staff and then his Pentagon chief.George may have been miffed. He may not have felt revered himself; thus, he would reciprocate. He would show no reverence. For a Bush boy like George W. one rebuke deserves another. By staying in Crawford, revenge would be his."Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction," Ford said. "And now, I've never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do."
In a conversation that veered between the current realities of a war in the Middle East and the old complexities of the war in Vietnam whose bitter end he presided over as president, Ford took issue with the notion of the United States entering a conflict in service of the idea of spreading democracy.
"Well, I can understand the theory of wanting to free people," Ford said, referring to Bush's assertion that the United States has a "duty to free people." But the former president said he was skeptical "whether you can detach that from the obligation number one, of what's in our national interest." He added: "And I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security."
The Ford interview -- and a subsequent lengthy conversation in 2005 -- took place for a future book project, though he said his comments could be published at any time after his death. In the sessions, Ford fondly recalled his close working relationship with key Bush advisers Cheney and Rumsfeld while expressing concern about the policies they pursued in more recent years.
"He was an excellent chief of staff. First class," Ford said. "But I think Cheney has become much more pugnacious" as vice president. He said he agreed with former secretary of state Colin L. Powell's assertion that Cheney developed a "fever" about the threat of terrorism and Iraq. "I think that's probably true."
Hummmph! Criticize my calculations, my management style, my strategy, and my men. The great George W. Bush would have none of that. The President, after much pondering might have resolved he would not attend the funeral until ultimately, by all rights and reason he had to.
There were six days of mourning; George W. Bush participated only for moments.
When George W. Bush did finally eulogize the man of character in the formal church observance, he spoke well of the Mister Ford. However, his words haunt me. The current President of the United States has never seen battle, though he sends thousands to fight and die for his cause. Our strong and strident leader, in his youth, and even now, while in office, has done all that he could to avoid the front lines. Then in memorial he says while standing in front of church audience, America, and the Ford family . . .
Mrs. Ford, the Ford family; distinguished guests, including our Presidents and First Ladies; and our fellow citizens: . . .Yikes! As I listened, I was struck. I stood still, my mouth wide open and eyes crinkled. I thought aloud, "Did George W. Bush just say that?" Could he speak so highly of a deed he never contemplated and still think himself an honorable man.Gerald Ford showed his character in the uniform of our country. When Pearl Harbor was attacked in December 1941, Gerald Ford was an attorney fresh out of Yale Law School, but when his nation called, he did not hesitate. In early 1942 he volunteered for the Navy and, after receiving his commission, worked hard to get assigned to a ship headed into combat. Eventually his wish was granted, and Lieutenant Ford was assigned to the aircraft carrier, USS Monterey, which saw action in some of the biggest battles of the Pacific.
I wondered. Was President Bush promoting an action in response to a need for more troops? Recruitment numbers are down. Families are no longer asking their sons and daughters to volunteer for service. They are not proud of what our military might has accomplished. What is, is not what the Administration promised. Many active duty troops disapprove of the President and his plans. Soldiers have suffered at the hands of poor planning, flawed facts, and formalized folly. Young men and women do not revel in the idea of going to battle. The reality of not coming home is too great. What was George W. Bush intending. What will he do next.
Surge is the suggested strategy; however, many use, there are not enough troops to carry out the proposed plan. George W. Bush, always thinking ahead. Apparently, even in remembrance he is shrewd. If he deems enlistment attractive and honorable, perhaps more young men and women will do as he never did, sacrifice their lives in battle.
Ford Wears the Uniform. Bush Sends Those in Uniform to Die . . .
Technorati Tags
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on January 2, 2007 at 04:00 PM in Brutality, Self-Defense, Bush 43 Administration, Compassionate Conservatives, Gerald R. Ford, Iraq War, Loss of Life, Military Missions, Policy, Richard [Dick] Cheney, Vice President , Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, War is in the Wind, War Kills [Mind, Body, Spirit], Wars Bush Commanded | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Barbara Bush. Houston Residents. “Send [Katrina] Refugees Back” ©
Everyone was tense; however, few were given the opportunity to talk publicly. Yet, she was. The former First Lady Barbara Bush had the ear of Nation Public Radio, Marketplace listeners.
Mrs. Bush stated, "What I'm hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway so this is working very well for them." At the time she spoke, in September 2005, the nation was uncertain of how to react to her words.
Was her comment a flippant slip of the tongue? Did it demonstrate the difference between the classes and the masses? What were we to make of this terse judgment? One year later, we know. Mrs. Bush was speaking for her fellow citizens; they want the Katrina evacuees to go home!
Only days after the anniversary of Katrina, on August 30, 2006
More than 1,700 residents gathered in west Houston Wednesday night to blame evacuees for violent crime rates that have increased almost 14 percent in one district and homicides that have nearly doubled in another.The poor relations had worn out their welcome. They are unclean, unfit, and are clearly criminals. These poverty-stricken folks were well hidden in Louisiana and Mississippi, before the storm devastated their homes. However, now they are out and about; they are walking freely among the wealthy, white Texans. This will not do!
It cannot be; it cannot continue. Compassionate conservatism is nice. As a slogan, the phrase connects “us” with those of lesser means, those whose votes we need in order to stay in power. However, when destitute drifters enter our real lives, when they live among us and soil our sanctity, it is time to pull the reins in, or so say the genteel citizens of Houston.
In a town hall meeting, Mayor Bill White was empathically instructed to send the “refugees back to New Orleans.” The outraged citizens said,
In District 19, patrolled by the Houston Police Department's Westside division; violent crimes are up 13.6 percent over the same period last year. In District 20, homicides jumped from five to 11 over the same 7 1/2 month period from a year ago.Enough is enough. He was told definitively, “These people” have no respect for those that have given them so much. They have to leave. Cast them to the wind or send them all back to their homeland. Humm, I wonder; where that might be, or where do the white residents of Houston think it is. Do the poor whites need to return to England or Ireland and the Black Americans to Africa, even though their families have been in this country for centuries? My mind turns.
The Mayor stood stoic and remained humble before the vocal crowd. Mayor White was well aware of the numbers and the circumstances. He understood that
As many as 120,000 evacuees remain in Houston since the city welcomed at least 250,000 after Katrina swamped New Orleans last year. Katrina evacuees are suspects or victims in 59 of Houston's 262 homicides between January 1, 2006 and August 26, 2006. Those crimes account for all of the increases in homicides over the same period in 2005.Considering the evacuees added approximately ten percent to the population of Houston, the Mayor knew this rise in crime was not unreasonable.
Mayor Bill White and Police Chief Harold L. Hurtt are aware of what is occurring. The officials have taken measures to alleviate the problem. However, an impatient and xenophobic populace is not gratified.
Upon realizing the reality of the current circumstances, the Mayor and the Police Chief reached out and sought federal assistance.
An increase in violent crime since September 1 and a spate of homicides over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend involving Katrina evacuees have elicited urgent pleas from Mayor Bill White and Police Chief Harold L. Hurtt to the federal government to help pay the cost of providing increased security and to hire more officers. Hurtt is taking the request to Washington next week as part of a meeting of police chiefs. White is also in negotiations with the Federal Emergency Management Agency.Additionally, as we assess the “facts” presented by the volatile Houston public we might note that they perceive crime as crime. They offer no numbers to help us determine how many of the Katrina evacuees are victims and how many are suspects. These angry residents must know that only late this month, Two Houston Residents [were] Charged with Filing Multiple False Claims for FEMA Assistance.Both officials are careful not to blame Houston's recent rise in violent crime solely on Katrina evacuees, saying such statistics were rising last year before the hurricane. They point to what they call the majority of law-abiding Louisianans now living in the city and say the crime rate per thousand for the evacuee population is not greater than it was among Houstonians before the influx of Katrina survivors.
But the issue facing the city, officials said, is that Houston's 2 million population grew by about 10 percent virtually overnight, straining all key city services such as schools, hospitals, emergency services and, particularly, public safety. The addition of the evacuee population has dropped the ratio of police officers per thousand Houstonians to 1.9, compared with 2.3 before Katrina and with the national average of 2.8.
Dear reader, I inquire how many more Houston inhabitants are profiting on the backs of former Louisianan residents? Will the truth be told by those focused on finding the victims of Katrina at fault. the Mayor, the Police Chief, and I wonder as we attempt to provide perspective.
After being bombarded by accusations and anecdotal accounts, the humble Mayor attempted to lessen the outrage. He spoke highly of his Houston constituents. Mayor White suggested the complaints are “a result of the fact that we have had some gangs and violent crime.” White continued, "In Houston, generally, we are not very tolerant of the small minority of people who came here from the New Orleans area who are able-bodied and haven't found a job yet."
The Houston administrator declared ‘There's a plan in place for those who break the law, and another plan for those evacuees who want to remain in Houston as law-abiding citizens.’ White said, "If people want do so something unlawful, then we need to catch them, try them, convict them and lock them up.” The first officer knows, the law is the law and Houston is no place for those that to not honor the law.
However, after issuing this stern warning the Mayor revealed his own form of Southern hospitality. He stated, "If they're [victims of Katrina] just trying to get on with their lives, then we ought to respect our fellow Americans, and there's not much of a home to go to." In truth there never was. Barbara Bush was “right.” Those left homeless by the ravages of Katrina were “underprivileged” before the storm. They lived in substandard houses. They were employed in menial service jobs, if working at all. Still, they were and are Americans.
When Barbara and her neighbors say, “go home,” they exemplify the sad fact that too often we do not want to know the reality of the poor. We do not want constant reminders in our midst. We actually prefer not to see, hear, or experience what bothers us, or reminds us of our own frailty and failings. When we perceive a “problem,” we blame everyone but ourselves! I find this fascinating and futile! How will we ever help others or ourselves if we avoid what disturbs us.
Please Ponder the World of Barbara Bush, Houston Residents, and Katrina Evacuees . . .
• Houston, we may have a problem. Marketplace. American Public Media. Monday, September 05, 2005
• Barbara Bush Calls Evacuees Better Off. New York Times. September 07, 2005
• Houston residents want Katrina evacuees sent back to N.O. Associated Press. WWLTV.com Thursday, August 31, 2006
• Residents urge White to send evacuees home, By Anne Marie Kilday. Houston Chronicle. August 31, 2006
• Katrina's Latest Damage, By Arian Campo-Flores. Newsweek. March 13, 2006
• PDF Katrina's Latest Damage, By Arian Campo-Flores. Newsweek. March 13, 2006
• Two Houston Residents Charged with Filing Multiple False Claims for FEMA Assistance, U.S. Newswire. August 21, 2006
• After Welcoming Evacuees, Houston Handles Spike inCrime, Population Swell Fills Apartments and Strains Police Force. By Sylvia Moreno. Washington Post. Monday, February 6, 2006
• Influx of Katrina Evacuees Strains Houston Police. All Things Considered. December 27, 2005
• Some of the Uprooted Won't Go Home Again, By Richard Morin and Lisa Rein. Washington Post. Friday, September 16, 2005
• Evacuees say blame for crime is not fair,By David Ellison. Houston Chronicle. September 1, 2006
• Barbara Bush: Things Working Out 'Very Well' for Poor Evacuees from New Orleans,By Editor and Publisher. September 05, 2005
• Houston grows weary of Katrina evacuees: poll. Boston.com News. March 24, 2006
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on September 2, 2006 at 12:00 AM in Barbara Bush, Compassionate Conservatives, Houston Residents, Hurricanes , Katrina, Katrina Evacuees, Katrina Refugees "Go Home", Storms and Suffering Survivors, Xenophobia | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Passion of Christ, Allah, Mohammed, the Almighty; All War ©
Nevertheless, this treatise is not meant to promote a discussion about the battles brewing in the Middle East. My choice is to look within, at wars in America.
For me, any brutal battle on any field is troublesome. I find what is going on in this nation disquieting. What might we be building up to, what do we believe, and why do our actions belie our said truth?
I believe, every human being that accepts war as an option must look at this decision. Yes, they can rationalize, intellectualize, justify, and blame. Still I ask, “What good does that do?” Will our verbal prophecies bring about peace? Will discussions of what is happening abroad end these futile feuds? Half-hearted attempts at diplomacy are that. The leaders of this nation have no interest in changing what is; if they had, they might start at home! I see no evidence of tranquility in America; yet we ask those in other nations to do as we do not.
I surmise if we support one war or another, then we back them all. America is at war and I am not speaking of the war on terrorism. Religiously we are ridiculously hypocritical. Racially, we uphold policies that discriminate. United States citizens profess a belief in equality; yet, they advance a society of the classes and the masses. We are duplicitous or self-deceiving. In this exposé, I intend to discuss sanctimonious attitudes towards religion and race.
I am too overwhelmed to write great prose. In this post, I am only going to offer headlines and short snippets from various articles. I am asking for a dialogue, not a debate. I disdain the idea of “I win, you lose.” I loathe the concept of "correct," political, or otherwise. The intent to prove another wrong for me is wasteful. What do we learn when our eyes and ears are closed. I abhor when words are wielded as weapons. I want no wars here or anywhere!
I ask only that you read, reflect, and state/share your beliefs. I crave a caring community and hope that in seeing the errors of our own ways we might choose to empathize with all others. I yearn for communities where people accept one another, honor the differences, learn from other cultures, and co-habit in harmony. However, this is not what I see. I observe people posturing, stating that they are working towards peace. Please, pray tell, where, how, and when?
Intentionally, I offer no articles on the combat across the sea. I want Americans to look into the mirror and see what exists daily in this nation. Peruse as you might. Ponder if you wish. Conclude as you choose. I will share my deduction. This is America, a land supposedly founded on the principle that all men are created equal. I do not see this conviction applied. I see only rampant racism and religious bigotry. I observe intolerance everywhere, here, in the “United” States of America!
• Gibson apologizes for driving drunk, ranting at police, By Sandy Cohen. The Associated Press. Sunday, July 30, 2006
The Sheriff's Department has refused to release either Gibson's mug shot or the report of the arresting officer, Deputy James Mee. According to Mee's report, Gibson berated and threatened the deputy in an expletive-filled tirade.In this country, we are shocked that a man made more famous by exploiting Christianity and promoting an anti-Semitic sentiments might be drunk with anger. We cannot imagine that such a soul would blurt out his hatred of Jews. Yet, has he not chosen to do so successfully for years? Did he not make millions for denigrating a race, a religion, or an ethnicity? He did, and with the blessing of the American people. God was truly on Mel’s side, or so he and his adoring public thought."The Passion of the Christ" director also made anti-Semitic remarks, according to the Web site. Mee's report, according to the Web site, quotes Gibson as saying, among other things, "Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world."
The report of Gibson's outburst struck some people who were already wary of what they saw as anti-Semitic overtones of "The Passion of the Christ" and who believe he has failed to disassociate himself clearly enough from remarks by his father denying the Holocaust.
Gibson found his calling; in his mind he was preaching from the bible. Yet, he created contrary to peace. I think this hypocritical stance is evident throughout the United States. Our President states God is speaking through him. Would God, or Christ choice to condemn others to death? Would the divine censure or convict a group of people or even an individual? Would Jesus cast the first stone and incite mass murder? Might the Lord, our God see evil on every corner and terrorize the masses? I think not, though I wonder.
I suppose if Jesus was an American, he may not be as he was. Just as other US, citizens, Christ may have become acculturated. Living among the apathetic sheep, he may have forgotten what it means to walk in peace and to show love to all men equally.
I invite you to read on, to ponder the truth and ways of your fellow citizens. Are these people truly hoping for harmony worldwide or in their local communities? Do they treat their neighbors as they would wish to be treated? Oh, if only . . .
• Is Racism Behind Treatment of Haitians? By Pauline Arrillaga. Associated Press National Writer. Los Angeles Times. July 29, 2006
The question they kept coming back to: Why? Why, they asked, are Haitian immigrants singled out by the U.S. government for unequal treatment? On this day, earlier in the year, the topic was temporary protected status, a designation the federal government can grant to foreigners allowing them to remain part time in the United States because of political unrest or environmental disasters at home.Central Americans have repeatedly been granted protected status following hurricanes and earthquakes in Nicaragua, Honduras and El Salvador. Immigrants from Burundi, Liberia, Somalia and Sudan also enjoy such protections.
But Haitians have never obtained relief, despite decades of political turmoil, kidnappings and killings, and tribulations from tropical storms.
"Why aren't Haitians good enough for the same basic protections?" demanded Steve Forester, of the group Haitian Women of Miami.
I ask as well, why are Haitians considered “not good enough?” Why do we speak of equality and then not grant it? American policies baffle me.
Only recently, Congress chose to reinstate the Voters Rights Act. King George Bush II signed it into law. Each thought them selves benevolent. I see no goodwill in bestowing rights towards native-born Black citizens. I observe only this comparison; Black is Black. It seems to me that Americans can and will find a way to belittle those of dark color. According to many United States citizens, once of African American heritage, always considered an African. Is that term synonymous with subhuman? I think not, though policy seems to belie my beliefs.
• Families Challenging Religious Influence in Delaware Schools, By Neela Banerjee. New York Times. July 29, 2006
For years, she and her daughter, Samantha, listened to Christian prayers at public school potlucks, award dinners and parent-teacher group meetings, she said. But at Samantha’s high school graduation in June 2004, a minister’s prayer proclaiming Jesus as the only way to the truth nudged Mrs. Dobrich to act.The clamor does not calm for it is not as a noise that begins and then ends. The argument lingers in the air as it has for centuries. In America, nine of the thirteen original colonies discriminated against those that did not subscribe to the official religion. Judaism was not considered “correct” centuries ago. It is no more correct in Delaware and other places today. Mrs. Dobrich may wish to wait for the storm to pass; however, the wait is likely to be a very long one.“It was as if no matter how much hard work, no matter how good a person you are, the only way you’ll ever be anything is through Jesus Christ,” Mrs. Dobrich said. “He said those words, and I saw Sam’s head snap and her start looking around, like, ‘Where’s my mom? Where’s my mom?’ And all I wanted to do was run up and take her in my arms.”
After the graduation, Mrs. Dobrich asked the Indian River district school board to consider prayers that were more generic and, she said, less exclusionary. As news of her request spread, many local Christians saw it as an effort to limit their free exercise of religion, residents said. Anger spilled on to talk radio, in letters to the editor and at school board meetings attended by hundreds of people carrying signs praising Jesus.
“What people here are saying is, ‘Stop interfering with our traditions, stop interfering with our faith and leave our country the way we knew it to be,’ ” said Dan Gaffney, a host at WGMD, a talk radio station in Rehoboth, and a supporter of prayer in the school district.
After receiving several threats, Mrs. Dobrich took her son, Alex, to Wilmington in the fall of 2004, planning to stay until the controversy blew over. It never has.
• Shattering Glass Ceilings, By McCoy, Frank. Black Enterprise. September 1995. Volume 26, Issue 2
The bipartisan Glass Ceiling Commission report on corporate American's dismal record of advancing minorities to management and decision-making positions includes multiple example of the biased policies many - but not all - white corporate officers employ to support their exclusionary and racist decisions.Black people get promotions white men deserve. Affirmative action hurts white men more than it helps black men or women.
The above falsehoods and other not-so-little white (male) lies were gutted recently by two studies that focused on minorities in the workplace.
The first light was shed by the bipartisan Glass Ceiling Commission report on corporate America's dismal record of advancing minorities to management and decision-making positions. The paper includes multiple examples of the biased policies many--but not all--white corporate officers employ to support their exclusionary and racist decisions. The commission was headed by U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich.
The results are stark. In 1992, white males, while making up only 43% of the total labor force at Fortune 1,000 Industrial and Fortune 500 Service companies, were 97% of the senior-level decision-making managers. By contrast, only 0.6% were black, 0.4% Latino and 0.3% Asian.
The lack of corporate status translates into lower salaries as well. Black males with professional degrees earn only 79 cents for every dollar received by white males with the same credentials. And black women take home only 60 cents per dollar.
A Commission report calls to US, though we hear nothing. The glass is not broken. Stereotypes are not shattered. Status and substantial salaries are not awarded to persons of color. Again, America is discriminating. Our wars may be subtle. Our means for suppression are silent; still, we kill. We do it with “kindness.” Constitutionally we declare, “All are created equal.” How thoughtful we are, with our words. Actions speak!
• OPINION: Immigration issue sparks American racism, Knight Ridder Tribune Business News. July 19, 2006.
Perhaps the recent flare-up of the immigration issue started out more legitimately. Certainly there are serious problems with waves of hundreds of thousands of people entering any country illegally. But like the head of a monstrous snake coming out of a thorny bush, the issue has grown its own nasty viper. Immigration has become the new magnet of American racism.It's time to recognize this evil trend, and confront it.
From the oh-so-patriotic "Minutemen," with their always potential overlap to vigilante violence, to the actual rise in incidents of race crime against dark-skinned Mexican and other Hispanics in recent months, the evidence is that a climate of disdain and potential race and/or ethnic hatred is being generated in North America. This is very evident in the type of language and self- definition put up by not so unconsciously race-based pundits and politicians.
Racism within the immigration issue is primarily directed at Latin American migrants coming north in search of economic opportunity. The shorthand language used has to do most of all with the sense by Anglo-Americans that the country is changing as so- called Hispanics or Latinos make up an ever-larger proportion of the minority population which, combined with blacks and Asian- Americans, now threatens to become established as the "new majority" and make the Euro-American population essentially the minority. Thus one can hear the likes of pundit and erstwhile presidential contender Pat Buchanan bemoan the fact that "we are losing our country," shorthand in this case being that crucial "we" and all that such possessiveness implies.
Xenophobia directed at Mexicans has a long history in America. Anglo-America, after all, warred first with Spain and, later, Mexico for a century over more than a third of present-day U.S. territory. Stereotype and racial hatred, ethnic insults (Mexicans as a "mongrel race," etc.) -- apparent requirements of war -- layered into the social consciousness of Anglo-Americans.
Salient points of this history not told by the conqueror were articulated in a recent New York Times essay by Tony Horwitz ("Immigration and the Curse of the Black Legend," July 9, 2006). To be faulted for too brazenly bypassing the indigenous perspective, Horwitz recounts accurately that North America's first European explorers and settlers were not English-speaking, but were from Spain. Horwitz: "Four of the sample questions on our naturalization test ask about Pilgrims. Nothing in the sample exam suggests that prospective citizens need know anything that occurred on this continent before the Mayflower landed in 1620."
Xenophobia, in America? Not possible, though extremely probable. We see it daily. Newspapers, periodicals, and books are filled with messages of fear. Our leaders reinforce the idea of terror. Yet, they are the ones repeatedly creating it. The killing our country allows here or abroad does not horrify many American citizens. This surprises me. We are murdering with guns, bayonets, or bombs foreign land and we slaughter with stereotypes here. We suppress freedom and liberty throughout the globe. We secure laws and policies that destroy lives and spirits. We are outraged by injustices in the Middle East. We declare that we know how to do good governance better. I ask, “Do we?”
Americans claim to live in peace; they believe in equinity. If only I could find the evidence.
• Mark Thoma, of Economist View, offers a discussion of a Robert Reich commentary, Oh What a Tangled Web. Former Secretary of Labor Reich evaluates the economy and how it is affected by the war[s]. Reich assesses our interconnectivity. He states it is obvious; the Middle East and the United States are joined. What happens in one part of the world will influence occurrences in the other. For Mr. Reich and me, issues do not exist in isolation. Currently, “global economics, home economics, and domestic politics” are a mess!
You might also wish to participate in a discussion of this text at the Robert Reich Blog. Speak with the Former Secretary and share your views on The Mess
May we walk and talk in peace. Please ponder . . .
• Live From...Firefight Between Israel, Hezbollah Continues. CNN News. July 14, 2006
• Bush blames Hezbollah for Mideast violence. USA Today. July 15, 2006
• Rice to seek 'lasting settlement' at U.N., By Katherine Shrader. Associated Press. Chicago Sun-Times. July 31, 2006
• Israel responsible for Qana attack; war crimes on both sides, Turkish Press. World News. July 31, 2006
• Israel Overreacts to Hostage Situation,Inept Bush Fails to Intervene, By Lloyd Williams. EURWeb. July 18,2006
• The Real Target of Arab Elites. The New Republic. July 21,2006
• PDF The Real Target of Arab Elites. The New Republic. July 21,2006
• American Idle, By Dan Froomkin. Special to Washington Post. Friday, July 28, 2006
• Monitoring Hate and Extremist Activity, The Intelligence Project. Southern Poverty Law Center.
• Gibson apologizes for driving drunk, ranting at police, By Sandy Cohen. Seattle Times Company. July 30, 2006
• As God Told Me ..., On President Bush, Pat Robertson and Mel Gibson, By Andy Rooney. 60 Minutes. CBS News. February 22, 2004
• Anti-Semitism - U.S. Anti-Defamation League.
• Gibson personalizes 'Passion of the Christ', By Marco R. della Cava. USA Today. February 20, 2004
• Is Racism Behind Treatment of Haitians? By Pauline Arrillaga. Associated Press National Writer. Los Angeles Times. July 29, 2006
• PDF Is Racism Behind Treatment of Haitians? By Pauline Arrillaga. Associated Press National Writer. Los Angeles Times. July 29, 2006
• National Coalition for Haitian Rights (NCHR)
• Black Racism: The Hate Crime That Dare Not Speak It's Name, By David Horowitz. FrontPageMagazine.com. July 16, 2002
• Voting act overshadows race debate, Democrats weigh diluting districts of black majorities, By Joseph Williams. Boston Globe. July 31, 2006
• Families Challenging Religious Influence in Delaware Schools, By Neela Banerjee. New York Times.July 29, 2006
• Shattering Glass Ceilings, By McCoy, Frank. Black Enterprise. September 1995. Volume 26, Issue 2
• Glass Ceiling Commission [1991-1996] DigitalCommons. Cornell School of Industrial and Labor Relations.
• Living as Jews in Christian America, By Rabbi Daniel Lapin, President. Toward Tradition. June 10, 2005
• Bill of Rights in Action. Constitutional Rights Foundation.
• From Test Oath to the Jew Bill, By Jerry Klinger. The Struggle for Religious and Political Freedom. Jewish Magazine.
• Immigration & racism in the U.S., by Ruth Vela. Workers World Forum. December 21, 2005
• A Nation of WASPs?, By Earl Shorris. The Nation. May 13, 2004
• Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People, September 20, 2001
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on July 30, 2006 at 10:11 PM in "The Passion of the Christ" , Aggression, Anti-Semitism, Change the World [Within], Christ, Allah, Mohammed, Almighty, Compassion, Conflict, Complex, Compassionate Conservatives, Current Affairs, Glass Ceiling Commission , God Bless, Hezbollah, Hamas, Inequality in America, Paradox of Peace, Religion, Religious Right, Religious Wars, War is in the Wind, War, The Last Option, Why War?, “War; Not an Option” | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Sex Education; Abstinence or Advancing Knowledge? ©
Apparently, in the early part of this year, a Bill, the Healthy Teens Act, was working its way through the New York State Legislature. In April, the proposed plan passed in the Assembly by a vote of 126 to 15. In May, The Senate’s Health Committee approved the same measure; the tally was 15 to 2. The initiative was doing well, just as expected. It had bipartisan support. A Republican representative sponsored the Bill in the Senate. Moderate groups such as the League of Women Voters and the Young Womens' Catholic Association [YWCA] of Greater New York endorsed the measure.
This Sex Education Bill was written with compromise in mind. The consensus a cooperative sponsorship would appease many concerns, and discussion of a controversial issue could be concluded. However, this was not the case. The measure never became law. It did not reach the floor for a vote.
The expected final passage never came to fruition. Instead, the initiative never moved after being sent to the Senate Finance Committee, ultimately, the Legislative session concluded and hopes were dashed.
the demise of the bill, though, makes plenty of sense when understood in a national context. This piece of legislation provided just one more front in a much larger political, cultural and scientific battle between proponents of sex education that teaches abstinence only, led by the Bush administration, and those who want classes to deal with contraception also.As the Healthy Teens Act was faltering, similar bills were being denied floor votes in Illinois and Minnesota, states that, like New York, are far from strongholds of the religious right. While about two-thirds of states require public schools to teach about H.I.V. and sexually transmitted diseases, fewer than half mandate sex education, and most stress abstinence, according to a survey by the Guttmacher Institute, a research group.
Thus, we have it. The Christian Coalition rules America. Its reign has been long and arduous for those that think more freely. This organization has controlled America’s purse strings and dictated philosophical position since Ronald Reagan took office. Ronny called them the “silent majority”; however, under his tutelage this organization gained fame, fortune, and force. Since the early 1980s, the Christian community has gathered greater strength and more political prowess. Now they are the dominant force. They cannot be reckoned with. There is no reasoning with this dogmatic assemblage. They have God on their side, or so they believe. What they do have are dollars.
“An ideological push and a billion bucks creates a wave,” said William Smith, the vice president of public policy for the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, a sexual-health advocacy organization.What Mr. Smith referred to is a trend toward federal financing of abstinence-only education that began in the early 1980’s but gathered money and momentum as part of the welfare-reform law passed in 1996. That statute provided $250 million over five years to courses that had the “exclusive purpose” of promoting abstinence. The pace of federal spending on abstinence-only education grew to $80 million annually by the last budget of the Clinton administration, and to $170 million by 2005, according to a report by Representative Henry A. Waxman, a California Democrat.
Abstinence and sex education are interesting subjects for me personally, for I was not raised conventionally, while the vast majority of my friends were. Prior to my birth, and possibly, probable before the birth of my elder sisters, my Mom filled the bathrooms with magazine racks. My family was well known for spending hours on the bowl. In each of the lavatories were books, strategically placed. The topics of these were no less significant than their position. The titles related to sex and reproduction.
In my younger years, constipation was my constant companion. Perhaps that is too much information, or more than you wished to know. However, that too may be relevant to this story. At the ages of 1 to 5 years, I had no interest in sex or reproduction; however, I did want something to pass the time with something other than my own thoughts as I sat on the pot.
At this point, I need to share my truth. I toilet trained myself at eight months. I began reading in school seven months later. Therefore, for me, time in the bathroom could be used wisely; it could be devoted to learning. My Mom understood this and took advantage of an opportunity to teach. She did not wait to have “the talk.” Nor did she anxiously await my queries. My Mom never bothered to anticipate those crucial questions. She acknowledged that children are curious. Early on, they investigate; they begin with their bodies.
My mother thought this a healthy exploration and she did not wish to leave me wanting. She made information readily available. Biology books geared to children were easily accessible in the restroom. Adult references were also within reach. Hardbound joke-books addressing issues of the body were nearby. As was the now famous Eros series by Allan Ginsberg. Discussions of sex and reproductions could be found in these impressive periodicals as well.
Periodically, my Mom would ask me of my understanding of the human body and its reproductive organs. By the age of five, she was satisfied; I understood. Later, as friends began asking quizzical questions, or telling “dirty jokes,” I found these silly. They knew nothing, postulated much, and accepted theories of the uniformed, immature mind. I never engaged in these musings.
At the age of eleven, my parents decided that there was reason to fear the life of suburbia. While an academic education may be better in these elite communities, the opportunity for learning may be limited in such a culture. The conclusion was, we would move to the city for two years. I would attend middle school in an area that might expose me to sex, drugs, and violence. While that might be thought scary, risky, or ridiculous to some, my parents thought, during the middle years peers mattered more.
All through my junior high school experience, I was open to those expected elements. I recall attending a slumber party shortly after school began. The boys crashed the gathering. Through the rumor mill, I had heard that one young man established, he and I were “going steady.” I was not flattered. I thought it foolishness. I also discovered he expected that on that night I would “put-out.” I did not even know this person of the male gender. Nor, did I intend to get to know him; at least, not in the way he demanded I must. When physically rejected, he threatened to break-up with me. I thought that was fine, actually better than fine. I never thought we were “going together” in the first place. I had no interest in pursuing a sexual entanglement with a man I was not familiar with.
For me, the lessons I learned in the bathroom and through discussions with my Mom and Dad were more meaningful than having someone physically touch me. I had been touched more deeply by the wisdom of words and images, those furnished by my parents. They helped me to understand that sex would not satisfy a need for love. Naturally, it would stimulate the body; however, that differs from the stimulation a mind, spirit, or soul might need.
The constant, continual, caring, and informative dialogues with my parents came naturally. There was no pretense or posturing; punitive pronouncements were not offered. I believe these conversations created a sense of comfort and confidence that, at the time, I did not know I had. Upon reflection, I think the reason I did not engage in the drug scene that surrounded me; nor did I participate in the violence was because I felt no need to escape, find the love I did not feel, or prove myself powerful. My parents did not cause me to feel less than.
I am and was aware of the fact that many of my friends did not have an open relationship with their parents. They craved love and attention. They wanted to feel safe and secure in their homes; however, mostly they did not. My acquaintances were desirous of dialogue. They wished to have parents that they could talk to about anything. Few did. In most families, the pattern was established; parents were authority figures. The relationship was not friendly. Asking for answers was a futile endeavor, especially if the subject was sex. Thus, my friends sought soothing elsewhere. Often, they found it in sex.
While my parents presented me with literature on contraception and assured me that when I was ready, I could come to them and we would discuss the options. The parents of my fellow classmates did not speak of sex; nor did they offer information. The topic was off limits, or boundaries were set. Some acquaintances found themselves pregnant; others married early just to get away from their families. Situations were sad, and for many the sorrow increased as they aged.
Early decisions to engage were not informed; they were emotional. Those that were taught to abstain indulged more frequently and freely. Those given restrictions, rebelled. The stories are numerous.
I, on the other hand, waited until I thought the time and person was right. I discussed the decision with my parents. I obtained contraception with my parents’ permission. Sex for me, was not an escape. I had no reason to run.
Yet, my reality is feared. The “right” believes sex education is the enemy. [My parents did enroll me in a district that provided sex education. For me, this instruction came late; my earlier edification was solid.] Opponents of the Bill most notably the New York State Catholic Conference stated, in a formal memorandum, this initiative presents a “failed philosophy of sex education.”
The conference raised the specter of classes being “turned into preparatory courses on casual sexual intercourse, with encouragement to use birth control.”
As journalist Freedman offered, this
contention hardly qualified as a new line of debate. What is different now is the broader dispute, inextricably bound up with national partisan politics, about whether abstinence-only programs work. This dispute is the ambient radiation around the Healthy Teens Act and its failure.As abstinence-only programs have become more common, rates of teenage pregnancy and out-of-wedlock childbirth in the United States have indeed dropped — by one-third for girls, ages 15 to 19 in the years from 1991 through 2003. In New York State, rates not only of teen pregnancy and birth but also of most sexually transmitted diseases have been declining.
While these statistics give rise to hope for such programs, I think what is hidden safely from view is vital.
Two prominent researchers in adolescent sexuality, Peter Bearman of Columbia, and Hannah Brueckner of Yale, found a more complex picture. While teenagers who took virginity pledges as part of abstinence-only programs started sexual activity later and had fewer partners than did other peers, they were just as likely to contract sexually transmitted diseases, the scholars concluded. These young people also tended not to use contraceptives if they became sexually active, and engaged in oral and anal intercourse in the belief such that activity did not violate the virginity pledge.
It seems obvious to me, though my opinion is only my own. Restrictions among my peers may have been more punitive and thus led to greater rebellion. However, limitations offer little learning. Those lacking a full understanding will seek further fulfillment. A confined or controlled mind will benefit no one. The body will become its conduit. It will explore, seeking the knowledge it does not have.
The New York State Senate leaders may have decided to let the Healthy Teens Act lie. However, sadly, those without sex education are likely to choose a “good [and unprotected] lay.”
Sex Education or Abstinence for those that do not wish to engage . . .
• “Muzzling Sex Education on Anything but Abstinence,” By Samuel G. Freedman. New York Times July 19, 2006
• Healthy Teens Act, The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU).
• League of Women Voters of New York State
• YWCA of Greater New York
• Age-appropriate Sex Education Grant Program Act. Illinois General Assembly
• Minnesota: Sex Education Debate Flares at State Capitol. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. March 13, 2003
• The Abstinence Clearinghouse.
• Sex & Abstinence. Christianity Today International.
• Sex & Abstinence. Teen Advice. About, Incorporated.
• Christian Coalition of America
• Reagan Urges Abstinence for Young to Avoid AIDS,By Gerald M. Boyd, Special to the New York Times. April 2, 1987
• Reagan the Paradigm Shifter, By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman. Znet. June 12, 2004
• Bush urges more abstinence funds; effectiveness uncertain, Associated Press. USA Today. November 25, 2004
• Teen girls see pregnancy as escape, says survey, Press Association. The Guardian. Monday July 17, 2006
• What Works: Curriculum-Based Programs that Prevent Teen Pregnancy, The National Campaign To Prevent Teen Pregnancy. Teenpregnancy.org
• Young mother warns against teen pregnancy, By Abby, [Dear Abby]. Universal Press Syndicate. July 19, 2006
• Talking With Kids About Sex and Relationships. Talking With Kids About Tough Issues
• More younger children are having sex - survey, By Juggie Naran. Independent Online. July 10 2005
• Teenage Pregnancy, Quick Reference and Fact Sheet. March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation.
• Some Abstinence Programs Mislead Teens, Report Says, By Ceci Connolly. Washington Post.Thursday, December 2, 2004
• When Teens Have Sex: Issues and Trends, By Douglas W. Nelson, President. The Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Update: An eloquently written and important revelation
• Will Future Doctors Be Forced to Teach Abstinence? By Myra Batchelder, Choice! Magazine and AlterNet. Posted July 20, 2006.
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on July 20, 2006 at 11:30 AM in Abstinence-Only Programs , Adult Influence on Children, Approval or Love, Communities, Communities and Communication , Compassionate Conservatives, Desire to Learn, Discussion, Education, Emotional Decisions, Evolution [Emotional, Physical, Spiritual], Family, Functioning, Fables, Healthy Teens Act , Humans, Self-Destructive, Materials That Matter, Mothers Work, My Mom, New York State Catholic Conference , Religious Right, Ronald Reagan, President , School Days, Sex Education, Society, Students Minds Stopped, Teach The Children, Virginity Pledge | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Hail Hayden. Long Live The Chief Of Lies. ©
This plan or is it this man, is responsible for gathering information on tens of millions of us. Thanks to General Hayden, trillions of telephone numbers have been collected. These digit combinations belong to innocent Americans. They are ours; yet, they are being held as potential weapons against us. While we are told, this library is only a compilation of digits and nothing more, intellectually we know, that in this techno-savvy society, listening to these calls is possible.
Initially, claims were made that this sweep would only affect those suspected of terrorism, people with links to al Queda. Progressively we learned, Bush and his bandwagon think we are all associated with insurgents. None of us can be trusted. However, we are commanded to have blind-faith in those that have none in us.
Repeatedly and regularly, this administration has released erroneous details as they pertain to this “trolling.” They ask us to understand as the particulars unfold. They tell us the illegal is legal. They swear their mission is to protect and defend the people of this nation. They affirm that they have. As proof they offer, America has not been attacked. However, the logic of this escapes me.
Are Bush and the boys equipped to predict. They were not in the past and judging from the present, as I witness the war in Iraq, or watch Osama go free, I see no evidence that their crystal ball has cleared. Still, Bush babbles on, “I want Congress to confirm this nomination.” He asks the American people for their support.
The principle he applies to terrorism is applicable to Hayden as well. Bush wants us to believe what he says of the General, even if evidence tells us otherwise. As we learn more of this man, more of his doings [surveillance] and dealings [possibly paying off the telephone companies], we are expected to believe, to proceed with blind faith. We are expected to follow our leader.
Trust the untrustworthy, and surprisingly, I do. I trust that Baby Bush is correct; the General knows how to spy, spin, and spew. He has done it with the best of them and he will do it to the rest of us. Actually, that is why I do not want this man as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
I do not feel safe or secure knowing that at the National Press Club in January 2006, General Michael Hayden, when asked of this surveillance initiative, he stated humbly, “I've taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," and still he violated the same.
I am not comforted when a person defends the Bush Constitution, which differs from the original text written for the United Sates of America. Hayden, with his words and allegiance fortified what the Bush administration calls the Terrorist Surveillance Program. He withheld the fact that this plan has been in force for the last four years, or that this scheme involved more than radical insurgents. General Hayden did not reveal that this system was scrutinizing the innocent, average Americans.
Hayden proudly continued, "I would never violate that Constitution, nor would I abuse the rights of the American people." “Never?” Is that a synonym for “always?” General Hayden I think lies, just as his president does. He twists and turns the truth and that frightens me. The language of our leader is a lexicon of convolution. Judging from what we know today, five months after the Hayden speech, it is clear that Michael Hayden is also a master of manipulation.
Today, Saturday, May 13, 2006, Bush proclaimed this manipulator is “supremely qualified” and in the kingdom of Bush, he is. Hayden was and is “central” in gathering “intelligence.” However, sadly, in this country, the meaning of the word “central” converts to radical and reactionary. Intelligence signifies idiocy and inanity. Typically, in the world of Bush, these closely correlate to immoral, unethical, and corrupt.
The General is all of these. While he is considered amiable, jovial, personable, and pleasant, just as his Commandant is, he is sly. He shares this quality with our likable lackey. According to King George II . . .
In Mike Hayden, the men and women of the CIA will have a strong leader who will support them as they work to disrupt terrorist attacks, penetrate closed societies, and gain information that is vital to protecting our Nation.
General Hayden is supremely qualified to lead the CIA. For the last year, he's been our Nation's first Deputy Director of National Intelligence, and has played a critical role in our efforts to reform America's intelligence capabilities to meet the threats of a new century. He has more than 20 years of experience in the intelligence field.[Please remember what the world “intelligence means in the Bush universe.]
He served for six years as Director of the National Security Agency and has a track record of success in leading and transforming that large intelligence agency. He also has held senior positions at the Pentagon and the National Security Council, and he served behind the Iron Curtain in our embassy in Bulgaria during the Cold War.
Mike knows our intelligence community from the ground up.[The General works underground, in the subversive, secretive, cagey quarters of the Bush/Cheney Kingdom.]
He's been both a producer and a consumer of intelligence and has overseen both human and technical intelligence activities, as well as the all-source analysis derived from those activities. The Senate unanimously confirmed Mike last year for his current post, and this week members of both parties have praised his nomination.[That is, until they realized the breath and scope of the surveillance program he constructed.]
I urge the Senate to confirm him promptly as the next Director of the CIA.
During General Hayden's tenure at the NSA, he helped establish and run one of our most vital intelligence efforts in the War on Terror -- the Terrorist Surveillance Program.. . . and that, my friends, is his greatest accomplishment.
Michael V. Hayden is a man that endeavors to establish a government that dishonors its people. His actions are deceptive and divisive. Hayden is, as is our chief; he is a man that lies with a smile. He makes his own rules and rates them permissible. He upholds the principles of the Constitution; however, these are not those presented in the document. General Michael V. Hayden is not the man I want to lead an organization with power and money. He is not the man for my America. Is he the man for yours?
For Your Pleasure . . .
• Bush defends surveillance, backs Hayden in radio address CNN News. Saturday, May 13, 2006
• CIA nominee is right fit for job, Bush says By John Diamond, USA Today May 9, 2006
• Radio Address by President Bush to the Nation Yahoo News. Saturday May 13, 10:06 am ET
• Questions and answers about the NSA phone record collection program CNN News May 11, 2006
• Remarks By General Michael V. Hayden National Press Club Monday, January 23, 2006
• Top C.I.A. Pick Has Credentials And Skeptics, By Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti. New York Times. May 6, 2006
• C.I.A. Pick Named as Bush Takes on Doubts in Party, By Elisabeth Bumiller and Carl Hulse. New York Times. May 9, 2006
• A look at the telephone surveillance issue The Baltimore Sun. May 12, 2006
• Report of NSA Phone Database Ignites Furor, By Michael Muskal. Los Angeles Times May 11, 2006
• NSA encryption systems
• UPDATE: Bush defends scope of domestic spying May 14, 2006
• Gathering data may not violate privacy rights, but it could be illegal By Joan Biskupic, USA Today. May 12, 2006
• Bush challenges hundreds of laws By Charlie Savage, Boston Globe. April 30, 2006
• [offered in PDF as well] Bush challenges hundreds of laws
Blog Discussions
• Free Advice to the NSA: How To Pursue Terrorists And Protect Civil Liberties By Dr. Strangelove. TMP Cafe
• Telcos Could Be Liable For Tens of Billions of Dollars For Illegally Turning Over Phone Records Think Progress
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on May 13, 2006 at 02:00 PM in Compassionate Conservatives, Current Affairs, Director of Central Intelligence , General M. Hayden, Lies, Michael V. Hayden, General , NSA, National Security Agency, Politics, Telephone “Trolling” , United States Constitution | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Bush and His Billionaires Caused It. Let Them Pay ©
It is true; we as a nation and as a world have seen an increase in the number and intensity of cataclysmic storms. Tornados, droughts, hurricanes and other recent disasters have caused great calamity. We are mired in misfortune. However, we are working to pay for what we caused. We are closing the barn door behind us; our prides and joys are all long gone. We now, belatedly, prepare for what was our own ignorance. We elected George W. Bush, twice. Well actually,
. . . in 2000, Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist appointed or anointed this sly desperado. It was 36 days after his first Presidential run that George W. Bush was selected as our President.
See what the true winner, by many counts, is now doing. Al Gore presents his concern.
• An Inconvenient Truth
• The Trailer
• A Campaign Gore Can't Lose, By Richard Cohen. Washington Post. Tuesday, April 18, 2006; Page A19
Nevertheless, four years later, we as a people essentially elected this twit. What were we thinking, or more accurately, what were those that voted for him thinking? Many admittedly envisioned GW as the great protector. He sheltered us [US] from terrorists. However, no radical fanatic did more damage than he. Bush battered this nation and our Earth. He did so under the guise of a compassionate conservative. I myself prefer a caring individual, one that conserves.
However, supporters of this scoundrel did not. They knew that this unethical Emperor had worked to destroy our environment. Immediately after his initial inauguration, King George II changed our environmental standards. He chose to lessen the ecologically sound restrictions that had been previously placed on the books. The Blundering Bush allowed for more arsenic in water.
Then and now, Gas Guzzling GW refuses to admit that burning coal is a problem. He encourages it. Bush belies the belief that cars using Chevron with Techron have served to increase temperatures worldwide. He says that he wants to reduce this nations addiction to fossil fuels. Why, if it does not harm? Perhaps, he, his family, and familiars are planning to invest in renewable energy. It is possible, though I find the theory questionable. Actions do speak louder than words.
If we consider the emission regulations Bush supports, we know his true desires. Sports Utility Vehicle owners receive tax breaks under Bush. A Republican Congress and the King allow these “small trucks” to emit toxic gases. Recent changes in the laws that govern these monstrosities do little to better our surroundings.
Baby George Bush believes or pretends to that natural causes are the reason we have had 19 of the 20 hottest years since 1980. This man or monster takes no personal responsibility. However, those of us that care and have watched the climate change wonder.
We Americans, those that never marked our ballots for this buffoon, note the irrefutable connections. We acknowledge that this administration is not only friendly toward oil interests. They are these. George W. Bush and his majestic dynasty made their money by investing in petroleum. They still do, as do their friends.
Moguls and magnates from these flourishing fuel-pumping conglomerates were America’s energy commission. Scientists were banned. These industrialists and entrepreneurs created what now is policy. They have generated storms of infinite proportion. Global warming is their legacy; yet, they are unwilling to pay for it and we, the people, do not ask them to. We again, chose to mistakenly let this administration be.
State governments are struggling to break even. Insurance companies are refusing to issue policies for weather-related tragedies. >People, ah the people. Those that are directly affected by decisions of the Bush Band are barely surviving. Still, we speak of Catastrophe Funds. The public is relying on its own taxes to pay for the damage that nature and we did not create.
Why are we not asking those that caused this ruin to pay? They have Billions. The price of their pleasure increases as the common folks suffer. Is this the “justice” George W. speaks of?
If we are to authentically spread democracy, might we not begin at home? Here in the USA, let us adopt laws that protect and provide for all equally. Let us no longer supplement the suffering imposed by a self-serving administration. If we were to pass and enforce regulations that ended global warming, if we demanded repayment for the damage caused by a corrupt Cabinet, imagine what a world this would be.
Sources of possible interest . . .
• George W. Bush, et al., Petitioners v. Albert Gore, Jr., et al. Cornell Law School
• Extra funds may ease woes By Beatrice E. Garcia, MiamiHerald.com Tuesday, April 18, 2006
• President Bush Discusses Global Climate Change June 2001
• Bush energy plan includes coal-burning power plants CNN Inside Politics. May 17, 2001
• Bush-Cheney Energy Plan: Plunder, Pollute, Price-Gouge and Profiteer Public Citizen May 17, 2001
• Bush's Energy Policy Philadelphia Inquirer February 2, 2006
• Bush: Global warming is just hot air By Katharine Mieszkowski. Salon. September 10, 2004
• Global Warming Information Center
• Bush Family Values: War, Wealth, Oil by Kevin Phillips. The Los Angeles Times.Sunday, February 8, 2004
• Humans cause global warming, US admits, BBC News. Monday, 3 June, 2002
• The 2004 Presidential Election: Who Won The Popular Vote? By Jonathan D. Simon, J.D. and Ron P. Baiman, Ph.D. Free Press
• The crisis at hand: covering Fla. homes, By Beatrice E. Garcia, MiamiHerald.com Sunday, April 16, 2006
• Katrina Clean-Up By Susanna Schrobsdorff. Newsweek. September 1, 2005
• Post-Katrina Promises Unfulfilled By Spencer S. Hsu. Washington Post Saturday, January 28, 2006
• Hurricane FAQs Hurricane Insurance Information Center
• Coalition Seeks Catastrophe Insurance Funds in N.Y., Other States Insurance Journal. October 3, 2005
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on April 18, 2006 at 05:05 PM in Business, Catastrophe Funds, Compassionate Conservatives, Consumption and Conservation, Current Affairs, Energy Enigma, Environment, Global Warming, Katrina Evacuees, Oil, Powerful Polluters, Price of Petroleum | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Governor Jeb’s Pockets are Full. His Heart is Empty. ©
Many of us have met the man; his pockets are full of change. He jingles as he walks. His money clip is bulging. The bills on the outside and within the fold are all high in denomination. He could peel off the dollars and not deplete his worth; yet he does not. His children wait anxiously for some deliverance; none is given. His family was tired, hungry, and helpless, and he is not. He has much; his relations receive little. Who is this less than benevolent man? He is your friend, your neighbor. He is the brother of your beloved President. He is Florida Governor Jeb Bush!
Greedy Governor Bush may be as many men or women, so concerned with his economic status and strength that he forgets his feelings. I knew that the phallocentric, manly, man, Floridian was quite the entrepreneur; however, I did not realize to what degree. Until my recent move to this fair state of Florida, I had no idea how unfair this Governor had made the region. A recent radio report brought the reality home to me. I share the story.
The other day, as I drove down the street listening to the local news I was appalled by the juxtaposition of accounts. The first commentary I heard offered impressive news. Florida was granted an incredible AAA credit rating. This is the highest score possible. The destruction, devastation, and debilitating circumstances that five major storms thrust upon this South Eastern state did not affect its financial standings. Actually, they were much improved. Floridians were able to maintain their wealth and will; they even added to it. Standard & Poor's deemed Florida as stable and well funded.
Nevertheless. The reporter continued; Governor Jeb Bush is bound and determined to stop the efforts to reduce the classroom size in Florida. The journalist referred to the enduring campaign that Jeb Bush has pursued for years, citing the Governors claims that the proposed plan is too costly and he would do all he could to stop the process.
Being new to Florida, I was flabbergasted by this news. I knew that Florida lagged behind almost every other state in the nation when it comes to education. Fewer dollars are spent per student here than they are elsewhere. I was aware that the schools in this South Eastern state are not the best, not even close. I acknowledge that scholarly institutions are not Florida’s fame. Being an educator, these facts haunted me. I desired to move here; yet, I wondered whether this decision was wise.
Actually, the reality of what is a seriously flawed school system haunted me; it caused me to hesitate. When I first chose to transition, I did what most people do. I weighed the pros and cons. I knew that the educational system was a strong and serious shortcoming. I trusted that the diversity that California offers was my friend. I acknowledged that a Blue Blood, such as myself, a Left-winged Liberal and proud of it, would be out of place in a Red, Republican, and Reactionary state; nevertheless, I wanted to go.
I chose to ignore the greatest con, otherwise known as a detractor, an offensive factor, or criminal, Jeb the racketeer! In truth, I never imagined that he was as I am learning he is. That anyone could be so callous and cruel never occurred to me. I never expected what is. When the truth is heard aloud, in real time, on the radio, when reality is glaring and staring me in the face, I cringe.
When I arrived back in my room, I researched the topic. I discovered that for at least three years Jeb has been speaking of his determination with defiance. No matter what the voters want and pass in respect to class size reduction, this Governor plans to defeat the prospect. Jeb Bush was never intent on educating the young well; he was determined to prohibit any item that costs the state more money. Reducing the student to teacher ratio does and Jeb has been working against the prospect for years.
In October 2002, the Governor was heard to say of the pending class size reduction bill, “if this initiative passes . . . I have a couple of devious plans' to stop this.” Such deceit, gleefully expressed, such a despicable man, and such an affect; society in Florida suffers. Please feel free to listen to Mr. Bush speak these ever so pleasant words.
Once heard, you too will realize that Governor Bush was never willing to give to the children, at least until now. Embarrassed by the concurrence of contrary positions, Jeb changed. As of this morning, he states that he is willing to work to reduce class size, to do as the people requested, and voted for. Possibly, Florida Governor Jed Bush heard the reports as I did last evening. Perhaps, he too thought he sounded so silly. More likely, he might have realized how uncaring he seemed to be. Jeb the juvenile, stresses economic stability; education be damned. He has his priorities and they are consistent with those of his family.
This Governor may have asked himself, does he want to be considered a conservative or compassionate. In the Bush tradition he might want to think of himself as both, simultaneously; however, he is neither. True to his tradition.
Jeb Bush is a man of words, whimsy, and woe to all that cross him, be they man, woman, or child. Perchance, we might be able to extrapolate. What might the world be if we assessed wealth not merely by the jingle of change, but instead by how the currency was spent?
Please peruse the references that solidify a sense of Jeb Bush, the jingling grinch.
• Bush Family Value$. By Stephen Pizzo. Mother Jones
• Jeb Bush followed the family game plan: Earn your fortune, then run for public office. By Alecia Swasy and Robert Trigaux. St. Petersburg Times
• A Climate of Success, BusinessFlorida
• State's credit rating drops after storms'It's patently unfair,' Gov. Blanco says. By Robert Travis Scott. Nola.com, Everything New Orleans
• Class-size issue dims glowing report on state's debt status.By Bill Kaczor. Associated Press
• GOP leaders target class-size amendment, New measure has governor's support. By Jason Garcia. Orlando Sentinel
• Schools still rank near the bottom. By Ron Matus. St. Petersburg Times
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on December 16, 2005 at 09:30 PM in Compassionate Conservatives, Education or Economics, Jeb Bush | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
